Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 13:12:36 05/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2001 at 00:00:37, Uri Blass wrote:
>On May 05, 2001 at 21:36:07, Jesper Antonsson wrote:
>
>>On May 05, 2001 at 21:11:55, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>On May 05, 2001 at 20:04:06, Jesper Antonsson wrote:
>>>
>>>>True, but perhaps even more so for "bad" than "speculative". I would say that
>>>>the better the eval, the more diminishing gains you will see. This is quite
>>>>obvious when you think about it, if you get a correct best move early (which
>>>>will happen with better eval) the best move won't likely change after that. >>This means that a steeper diminishing gains curve is a sign of quality.
>>>
>>>I think it is the opposite. The simpler the eval, the more pronounced the
>>>diminishing returns, and vice-versa. Deeper search with a good eval not
>>>only finds "tactical" things but it finds "positional tactics" as well...
>>
>>Then I ask you to think it through again. Deeper search with bad eval will often
>>have to change it mind because the search depth will refute the choices made
>>based on positional knowledge. Good eval will mean that there is on average less
>>earlier choices to refute by deeper search, so it won't change it's mind as
>>much. Better choices earlier must lead to fewer change-of-minds.
>
>I believe that it may be the opposite unless the evaluation is close to be
>perfect and if you have perfect evaluation you do not need search.
>
>I can give extreme examples
>
>1)If your evaluation is 0.00 except cases of mates then you almost never change
>your mind.
>
>Chess programs have better evaluation and they change their mind often so better
>evaluation can tell programs to change their mind more often.
I'd like to extend this example...
1b) Let the evaluation be the next value from a random number generator,
except in the case of mates (or stalemates).
This one would change its mind quite often (IMHO), but is obviously "dumb".
Now we have two "dump" evaluation function, one produces very few changes,
and one very many changes.
Therefore, neither many nor few changes can be used to infer the quality
of an evaluation function (without further assumptions/information).
Heiner
>2)If you count only material in your evaluation you can start the game with 1.a3
>and never change your mind(1.a3 does not lose material at any reasonable depth)
>
>Chess programs of today are going to change their mind in the first move.
>
>Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.